Errata Sheet
EPA 430-R-04-006 (June 2004)
30 December 2004
This errata sheet lists corrections and elaboration on points discussed in U.S. EPA 430-R-04-006
(June 2004), Analysis of Costs to Abate International Ozone-Depleting Substance Substitute
Emissions. This errata sheet highlights the major updates that are being made based on new
information provided after the original analysis was performed, and discusses how these updates
affect various data and results presented in the report. Summaries of the major changes are
provided first, indicating the pertinent chapter. Following these summaries are revised tables,
with data from the June 2004 report that has changed shown in strikeout format, that illustrate
how the overall results are affected. For complete updated results, the reader is encouraged to
refer to future U.S. EPA reports on global emissions of non-CC>2 greenhouse gases and costs to
abate those emissions.
MAJOR CHANGES
. Foams: As noted in the original report, the emissions from appliance foam at disposal are
dependent upon how the discarded foam is handled and processed. Research indicates
that the amount of HFC content remaining in appliance foam is not released
instantaneously upon disposal/shredding. Rather, only approximately between 20% and
40% of the FIFC content is emitted at the time of shredding, depending on the size of
shredded particles. The assumption that 100% of the remaining blowing agent (or
92.25% of the original amount) is emitted at disposal was changed. Instead, it is assumed
that 30% of the remaining blowing agent (27.675% of the original amount) is emitted at
disposal. Although the remaining amount might still be emitted over time (e.g., as the
blowing agent diffuses from the foam and out of a landfill), the model was not capable of
tracking those emissions and hence those emissions are not included in the baseline
estimates. Additional research is underway to confirm the 30% estimate, but the results
were not available to use in these revisions. Baseline emissions from this foams end-use
were reduced, relative to the baselines listed in the June 2004 report, for the years 2015
and 2020 (no appliance foam containing FIFC blowing agents was assumed to be
disposed in 2005 or 2010).
. Foams: The above change also affected the emissions in 2015 and 2020 abatable by the end-
of-life options. While the actual amount of emissions abated at the time of disposal (i.e.,
the amount of HFC blowing agent destroyed) is the same, the above change implies that
the amount that would be abated from the baseline emissions in a given year is lower.
Because the model was not capable of tracking emissions after disposal, those emissions
are not included in the estimates of emissions reduced by the end-of-life options
analyzed. This change therefore decreased the emissions abated by these options.
. Foams: New information on the costs associated with appliance foam end-of-life options has
been received, which increased the marginal abatement costs ($/TCE) of these options.
. Foams: Based on Mutton and Lee (Earth Technologies Forum, 2004) and Vo and Paquet
(Earth Technologies Forum, 2004), the emission function of extruded polystyrene (XPS)
-------
boardstock foam was changed. A slower release rate and longer lifetime1 were assumed,
thus decreasing baseline emissions from this end-use from all countries where emissions
were assumed to exist.
Foams: New information was obtained on the XPS market that changed the options
analyzed. It was decided that the conversion to pure CC>2 was not a likely option and so
was removed from the report. The conversion to CCVAlcohol remained, with a
typographical error in the assumed market penetration fixed, and with the previous
market penetration of both options now attributed to this one option. The emissions
abated by the option in non-U.S. Annex I countries also changed based on the change in
emission baselines (emission abated in the U.S. and non-Annex I countries remained
zero). Also, new information on capital and annual costs associated with this option was
used. Overall, the marginal abatement cost ($/TCE) of this option increased.
Fire Extinguishing: The U.S. Vintaging Model was revised to reflect the continued
availability and use of halons after the original system is decommissioned. Also, the
average emission rate was revised from 1.5% to 2.0% based on Verdonik et al. (Earth
Technologies Forum, 2004). Finally, the original market size information contained in
the Vintaging Model was updated to reflect market data published in the UNEP 2002
Assessment Report of the Halons Technical Options Committee. Overall, these changes
resulted in lower baseline U.S. emissions, and hence lower emission savings of the
various options in the U.S.
Fire Extinguishing: New market transition data was provided for Europe, allowing us to
create custom vintaging models for these countries. The baseline emissions changed in
two ways: (1) baseline emission estimates decreased generally except in 2020 when they
were slightly higher, and (2) the trend of decreasing baseline emissions was reversed such
that emissions now are estimated to increase over time.
Fire Extinguishing: The costs used to evaluate the abatement options were reevaluated. It
was discovered that the different sources that were originally used reflected costs at
different times. Because of the dynamic nature of this market (for example, the amount
of HFC-227ea agent required to protect against Class A hazards has decreased
approximately 11%, and the cost of the agent has decreased approximately 30%, in just
one year), we decided to use agent costs from August 2003, provided by Bob Wickham
in a letter dated August 11, 2004. These agent costs were used to support overall
installation cost estimates published in an August 2003 report, which was and continues
to be used in our analysis. Also, the costs and emission savings were adjusted to reflect
the new 2.0% average emission rate. Overall, the marginal abatement costs ($/TCE) of
the options declined.
Solvents: New information was obtained on the use of HFEs in the solvents sector. Industry
experts felt that a more likely mix of the use of HFEs as substitutes for HFC and PFC
solvents which in turn are used as ozone-depleting substance (ODS) substitutes, would be
approximately 75% HFE-7100 and 25% HFE-7200. Hence, the nominal GWP of HFE
was changed from 222.5, which was based on a 50/50 mix of HFE-7100 and HFE-7200,
to 306.25. This increased the reduction efficiency and increased emissions savings of the
"Conversion to HFE Solvents" option, but did not affect the price.
1 Loss at foam end-of-life was also modified; however, because of the long lifetime assumed for this foam type,
disposal emissions do not occur within the timeframe of the analysis.
-------
Solvents: The U.S. use of PFCs as substitutes to ODSs was revised to assume a decrease to
zero by 2010, based on information provided by chemical manufacturers and industry
experts. This decreased baseline emission estimates for the U.S. slightly.
Solvents: Some PFC use as ODS substitutes for precision cleaning in countries other than
the U.S. was assumed by estimating the total global PFC use in 2000, and assuming a
linear decrease in use to zero by 2015, based on information provided by chemical
manufacturers and industry experts. This use was apportioned to non-U.S. countries
based on their semiconductor market, which was used as a proxy for circuit board
cleaning, a predominant precision cleaning use. This change increased baseline
emissions of those countries.
. Solvents: Because changes to the solvents baseline emissions resulted in PFC emissions
comprising a large portion of total GWP-weighted emissions for some non-US countries,
the technical applicability for the Retrofit and Not-In-Kind (NIK) options was adjusted to
100 percent.
. Solvents: Additionally, the technical applicability for the Conversion to HFEs option was
reduced to reflect that HFE emissions were already assumed to comprise some portion of
the baseline. For example, since 19% of total solvent U.S. baseline emissions in 2005 are
estimated to be HFEs, the technical applicability for this option in 2005 is 81%. This
decreased the emission savings of this option.
Solvents: The GWP of the gas being removed for the Retrofit and NIK options was adjusted
to a weighted average of the gases in the baseline, using U.S. data for year 2020.
Previously, the GWP of the gas being removed was that of HFC-4310mee; however,
because the technical applicability was adjusted to 100%, the GWP was revised
accordingly to reflect the mix of gases assumed in the baseline. Overall, the marginal
abatement costs ($/TCE) of the retrofit option decreased (i.e., the savings increased)
while the costs of the NIK options increased.
NEW TABLES
. Exhibit ES-1 (baseline ODS substitute emissions by sector for 2005-2020).
. Table 3-1 (emission rate profile for foam end-uses).
. Table 3-2 (baseline emissions from foams).
Tables 3-8, 3-9 and 3-10 (assumptions and costs used in the cost analyses for XPS foams).
. Tables 3-26, 3-27 and 3-28 (foams results of emissions abated in 2020 and $/TCE costs for
options in the U.S., Annex I, and non-Annex I).
. Table 4-1 (baseline emissions from fire extinguishing).
. Table 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 (fire extinguishing results of emissions abated in 2020 and $/TCE
costs for options in the U.S., Annex I, and non-Annex I).
. Table 5-2 (baseline emissions from solvents).
. Table 5-6, 5-7 and 5-8 (solvents results of emissions abated in 2020 and $/TCE costs for
options in the U.S., Annex I, and non-Annex I).
-------
Exhibit ES-1: Baseline World ODS Substitute High GWP Gas Emissions (MMTCE)
Source of High GWP Gases Used as ODS Substitutes
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning
Partially and Fully Fluorinated Solvents
Aerosols
Foams
Fire Extinguishing
TOTAL
Notes:
2005
5Q Q2
59.90
1 07
3.17
12.26
294
2.58
2 25
1.01
73 /|5
78.92
2010
94.46
1 14
2.10
14.44
C Of)
4.21
2 25
1.76
-|-|7 55
116.98
2015
-|28 73
128.67
1 20
1.13
15.92
7 75
5.64
2 55
2.49
-|55 25
153.84
2020
-|5Q QQ
158.73
1 26
1.23
17.60
-1C QQ
9.39
3 -|Q
3.24
-|97 23
190.17
Forecast assumes a "business-as-usual" scenario as described abovo in the original report.
The emissions forecast includes only direct emissions. Indirect emissions— those that result from the production of energy
required in the manufacturing and operation of the emitting sources— are not included.
Sums might not add to total due to independent rounding.
Table 3-1: U.S. EPA's Vintaging Model Emissions Profile for the Foams End-Use
Foams Sector
Flexible PU
Polyisocyanurate Boardstock
Rigid PU Integral Skin
Rigid PU Appliance
Rigid PU Commercial Refrigeration
Rigid PU Spray
One Component
Rigid PU Slabstock and Other
Phenolic
Polyolefin
XPS Foam Sheet
XPS Boardstock
Sandwich Panel
Loss at
Manufacturing
(%)
100
6
95
4
6
15
100
37.5
23
95
40
25
5.5
Annual
Release
Rate (%)
0
1
2.5
0.25
0.25
1.5
0
0.75
0.875
2.5
2
3£0.75
0.5
Release
Lifetime
(years)
0-1
50
2
15
15
§756
0-1
15
32
2
25
30-50
50
Loss at
Disposal
(%)
0
44
0
92 25
18.45-36.9*
90.25
6-1
0
51.25
49
0
0
0-37.5
69.5
Total
Released
(%)
100
100
100
-|QQ
35
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
*for calculation purposes, 27.675% is used.
Table 3-2: Baseline HFC Emission Estimates from Foams (MMTCE)
Regions 2005 2010 2015
2020
United States
Non-US Annex I
Non-Annex I
0.53
3402.05
0.00
4901.52
3402.68
0.01
3452.17
4§93.46
0.01
7=353.81
9*1-5.57
0.01
Total
2=842.58
5=304.21
7=745.64
46=38 9.39
-------
Table 3-8: Base Case Assumptions for a Hypothetical Contractor Facility Using HFC-134a/C02 (LCD) Based
Blowing Agents in XPS Foam
Variable
Value
Source
Blowing Agent Consumption
Polystyrene Consumption
Foam Produced
Price of C02
Price of HFC-134a
Price of Polystyrene
1,500,000 Ib/yr Estimated from Caleb (2001)
2.0 Ib/ft3 Assumption
8,330,000 ft3/yr Assumption
$0.20/lb Airproducts, 2003
$1.70/lb Atofina,2004
$0.40/lb $0.75/lb Purchasing.com, Plastic News, 2004
Table 3 9: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC 134a/C02 with C02 in XPS
Peam-DELETED
Table 3-10: Assumptions and costs used in the cost analysis to substitute HFC-134a/C02 with CC^/Alcohol in
XPS Foam
Variable
Value
Source
Capital Costs
Increase in Foam Density
Price of Alcohol
960 $4,500,000*
§%10%
$0.65
Assumption DOW, 2004
Assumption DOW, 2004
Purchasing.com
a Blends with alcohol (e.g., ethanol) require lower pressure extrusion; therefore lower capital than pure CO^
Table 3-26: Emission Reductions in 2020 and Costs of Abatement for Foams in the US
[Note: changes in Break-Even Prices will result in reordering of this table; therefore revised
cumulative reductions are only shown for the last reduction option.]
Break-Even Price Emission Reduction off Cumulative Cumulative %
(2000$/TCE) Reduction of Baseline Reductions Reduction from
Discount/Tax Rate Option (Percent) (MMTCE) 2020 Baseline
Reduction Option 4%/0% 20%/40% (MMTCE)
Spray HFC-245fa/C02 and HFC-
365mfc/HFC-227eatoHC
PU One Component HFC-152a to HC
XPS: HFC-134a/C02 to C02/Alcohol
PU One Component HFC-134a to HC
vpg- |_|pQ 13/I3/CQ2 to C02
ApplianceHFC-134atoHC
Appliance: Automated Process with
Foam Grinding, HFC Adsorption, and
Foam Landfilling
PU Continuous and Discontinuous HFC
toHC
Spray HFC-245fa/C02 and HFC-
365mfc/HFC-227ea to C02
Appliance: Manual Process with Foam
Incineration
Appliance HFC-245fa and HFC
365mfc/HCF-227ea to HC
$(17.97)
Itffl /|Q)
$(87.29)
§IQ §Q\
$25.56
$(0.07)
(H-| /|8
$17.35
$23 82
$68.67
$43.83
$96.45
$175 09
$176.23
$201.80
$(13.98)
$2 77
$25.68
-------
Table 3-27: Emission Reductions in 2020 and Costs of Abatement for Foams in the non-US Annex I Countries
[Note: changes in Break-Even Prices will result in reordering of this table; therefore revised
cumulative reductions are only shown for the last reduction option.]
Reduction Option
Spray HFC-245fa/C02 and HFC-
365mfc/HFC-227ea to HC
PU One Component HFC-152a to HC
XPS: HFC-134a/C02 to C02/Alcohol
PU One Component HFC-134a to HC
XPS: HFC 134a/C02toC02
Appliance HFC-134a to HC
Appliance: Automated Process with
Foam Grinding, HFC Adsorption, and
Foam Landfilling
PU Continuous and Discontinuous
HFC to HC
Spray HFC-245fa/C02 and HFC-
365mfc/HFC-227eatoC02
Appliance: Manual Process with Foam
Incineration
Appliance HFC-245fa and HFC
365mfc/HCF-227ea to HC
Break-Even Price3
(2000$/TCE)
Discount Rate/Tax
Rate
4%/0%
Low High
$(17.97)
ftfq /im
Vy^ .~rv f
$(87.29)
ftffl Km
^r\\J.\s\J f
$25.56
$(0.07)
t-M /1Q
^n i ,^\j
$17.35
$23 82
$68.67
$43.83
$96.45
$175 09
$176.23
$201.80
$(15.13)
ftffl /im
Vy^ .~rv f
$(87.29)
ftffl z.n\
^r\\J.\s\J f
$25.56
$(0.07)
C-M /1Q
^n i ,^\j
$17.35
$23 82
$68.67
$43.83
$96.45
$175 09
$176.23
$201.80
Break-Even Price3
(2000$/TCE)
Discount Rate/Tax Rate
20%/40%
Low High
$ (13.98)
$2 77
$25.68
$12 82
$171.64
$14.08
1%
3.9%
01%
0.0%
-| 2%
5.9%
Cumulative Cumulative
Reductions %
(MMTCE) Reduction
from 2020
Baseline
Q Q9
n OQ
\J ,\J-O
n OQ
\J ,\J-O
Q -|Q
-1 QQ
1 ,\J-O
-I QQ
I ,\J-O
247-
247-
g QQ
g -|Q
3r242.35
Q 9o/0
n noi
\j ,-y /u
n noi
\j ,-y /u
21%
o-i nqA
£. 1 ,\J /U
o-i nqA
£. 1 .U /U
32 9%
32 9%
3/1 3%
3/1 /|(%
35 g%
42.3%
a Costs vary by country/region based on one-time or annual adjustment factors; therefore, the lowest and highest costs for the region are
shown.
-------
Table 3-28: Emission Reductions in 2020 and Costs of Abatement for Foams in non-Annex I Countries
[Note: changes in Break-Even Prices will result in reordering of this table; therefore cumulative
reductions are only shown for the last reduction option.]
Break-Even Price
(2000$/TCE)
Discount /Tax Rate
Emission Reduction off Cumulative Cumulative %
Reduction of Baseline Reductions Reduction from
Option (Percent) (MMTCE) 2020 Baseline
Reduction Option
Spray HFC-245fa/C02 and HFC-
365mfc/HFC-227ea to HC
PU One Component HFC-152a to HC
XPS: HFC-134a/C02 to C02/Alcohol
PU One Component HFC-134a to HC
vpg- |_|pQ 1313/CQ2 to C02
Appliance HFC-134a to HC
Appliance: Automated Process with Foam
Grinding, HFC Adsorption, and Foam
Landfilling
PU Continuous and Discontinuous HFC to
HC
Spray HFC-245fa/C02 and HFC-
365mfc/HFC-227eatoC02
Appliance: Manual Process with Foam
Incineration
Appliance HFC-245fa and HFC
365mfc/HCF-227ea to HC
* Break-even costs do not vary by country within
4%/0%
$(1797)
•H • ;
-------
Table 4-8: Non-U.S. Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Fire Extinguishing
Reduction Break-Even Cost (2000$/TCE)a Emission Percent Cumulative Cumulative
Option Discount/Tax Rate Reduction Reduction Reductions % Reduction
4%/0% 20%/40% of Option from 2020 (MMTCE) from 2020
(MMTCE) Baseline Baseline
Low
High
Low
High
Inert Gases
Water Mist
$3372
$74.78
$7110
$47.63
$111.76
$78.21
$35 22
$75.90
$136 29
$94.70
$237 3Q
$200.94
$33/1 91
$263.16
$369.25
$271.21
$/!67 17
$343.94
$336.75
$264.47
$483 77
$340.16
$761.31
$500.29
0490.21 A
0450.17 A
0.02
Sr&%20.2% 0490.21 493% 20.2%
53% 16.2% 0330.38 35^% 36.4%
2.3% Or3§ 0.40 37rS% 38.7%
a Costs vary by country/region based on one-time or annual adjustment factors (e.g., electricity price); therefore, the lowest and highest costs
for the region are shown.
Table 4-9: Non Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Fire Extinguishing
Reduction Break-Even Cost (2000$/TCE)a Emission Percent Cumulative Cumulative %
Option Discount/Tax Rate Reduction of Reduction Reductions Reduction from
4o//0o/ 20°//40°/ Option from 2020 (MMTCE) 2020 Baseline
(MMTCE) Baseline
Low
High
Low
High
FK-5-1-12
Inert Gases
Water Mist
$33 7/1
$74.79
$31 29
$53.38
$126 1Q
$88.03
$3/1 36
$75.24
$11/1 3Q
$76.93
$219 35
$145.06
$335 01
$263.22
$414 31
$303.69
$387.41
$336 18
$263.98
$486 93
$346.75
$7/10 97
$504.47
0430.17
0440.13
0.02
9^% 10.1%
7^% 8.1%
44% 1.2%
0430.17
&240.30
&240.32
9 90^ 1 o 1 %
47^% 18.2%
4&9%19.3%
a Costs vary by country/region based on one-time or annual adjustment factors (e.g., electricity price); therefore, the lowest and highest costs
for the region are shown.
Table 5-2: Baseline HFC and PFC Emission Estimates from Solvents (MMTCE)
Region
United States
Non-U.S. Annex I
Non-Annex I
Total
2005
0450.44
U.OD 1 .00
0461.16
4^3.17
2010
0490.46
Q£?1.01
0090.63
4442.10
2015
0^2-0.50
0^0.53
04&0.09
4=201.13
2020
&570.56
&580.56
0.12
4=261.23
Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.
Table 5-6: United States Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Solvents
Break-Even Cost (2000$/TCE)
Discount Rate/Tax Rate
Reduction Option
Retrofit
I4EG Convert to HFE
NIK Semi-Aqueous
NIK Aqueous
4%/0%
($199.64)
$0.00
$OrS&$1.18
$§^$9.92
20%/40%
($196.62)
$0.00
$244 $3.18
$47^89 $26.63
Emission
Reduction of
Option (MMTCE)
0.00
£280.20
0.03
0.06
Percent
Reduction from
2020 Baseline
0.0%
49r7-%36.2%
5.0%
10.0%
Cumulative
Reductions
(MMTCE)
0.00
&280.20
£340.23
03? 0.29
Cumulative %
Reduction from
2020 Baseline
0.0%
49r7-%36.2%
§4r7-%41.2%
§4J%51.2%
-------
Table 5-7: Non-U.S. Annex I Emission Reductions in 2020 and Break-Even Costs for Solvents
Reduction Option
Retrofit
I4EG Convert to HFE
NIK Semi-Aqueous
NIK Aqueous
Break-Even Cost (2000$/TCE)
Discount Rate/Tax Rate
4%/0% 20%/40%
($199.64) ($196.62)
$0.00 $0.00
$OrSe$1.18 $344$3.18
$6^ $9.92 $4^8& $26.63
Table 5-8: Non Annex 1 Emission Reductions in
Reduction Option
Retrofit
I4EG Convert to HFE
NIK Semi-Aqueous
NIK Aqueous
Break-Even Cost (2000$/TCE)
Discount Rate/Tax Rate
4%/0% 20%/40%
($199.64) ($196.62)
$0.00 $0.00
$0 80 $1 18 $2 14 $3 18
$6^ $9.92 $4£§9 $26.63
Emission
Reduction of
Option (MMTCE)
0.00
0430.08
0.06
0430.11
Percent
Reduction from
2020 Baseline
0.0%
20^% 15.1%
10.0%
20.0%
Cumulative
Reductions
(MMTCE)
0.00
0430.08
Q4S0.14
0^390.25
Cumulative %
Reduction from
2020 Baseline
0.0%
30^% 15.1%
3Qr£%25.1%
§Qr£%45.1%
2020 and Break-Even Costs for Solvents
Emission
Reduction of
Option (MMTCE)
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
Percent
Reduction from
2020 Baseline
10.5%
20. 7% 15.1%
10.0%
20.0%
Cumulative
Reductions
(MMTCE)
0.01
0040.03
£050.04
OrO^O.06
Cumulative %
Reduction from
2020 Baseline
10.5%
343% 25.6%
443% 35.6%
643% 55.6%
------- |